(866)-482-2177

sales@alphatheory.com

REQUEST A DEMO

SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS


Please note the following System Requirements. Further, please limit the number of open applications (particularly price streaming applications) while logged in to Alpha Theory™.


Recommended System Specifications
Processor: Dual Core or Quad-Core 2.4GHz or faster
RAM: 4GB+
Browser: Google Chrome 30+
Screen Resolution: 1280 x 1024 or greater
Internet Access: Business Class High-Speed


Minimum System Requirements
Processor: Intel Pentium-M 2.0Ghz or equivalent
RAM: 2GB+
Browser: Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, Internet Explorer 9+ (without Compatibility View), Safari
Screen Resolution: 1024 x 768 or greater
Internet Access: High-Speed

Subscribe to Alpha Theory content

Alpha Theory Blog - News and Insights

48 posts categorized "External Articles"

March 30, 2021

Capital Allocators Book release by Ted Seides

Our friend Ted Seides has recently released a great book titled “Capital Allocators” and WE’RE IN IT! The book distills the learnings and best practices of his 180+ podcasts and is a treasure trove of great insights. There are four things that make the book special:

1. Ted gets amazing people.

2. Many of these people don’t publish their thoughts and this is our only access to them

3. Ted has distilled the best of these learnings into a “toolkit” you can apply to your own investing.

4. ALPHA THEORY IS INCLUDED!

 

See below for the section on Alpha Theory (italicized paragraph is edited to focus on Alpha Theory):

 

Cameron Hight was a frustrated former hedge fund manager at a smaller shop who felt he did not have the requisite tools to improve their own skills. He set aside managing money to create a software company that would help portfolio managers.

 

Cameron Hight had an insight that has helped hedge fund managers big and small optimize portfolio construction. He believed markets move so quickly that a portfolio manager cannot consider all the variables to optimize position sizing in real time. His business, Alpha Theory, strives to make the implicit explicit by putting numbers and probabilities on position sizing decisions.

 

Alpha Theory uses the investment team's research to calculate risk and reward in real time. A thorough analyst already has models and probability scenarios for the potential path a stock might take. Absent new Information, each movement in the stock price changes the attractiveness of risk and reward. Alpha Theory models conviction-weighted sizing based on the investment team's research and compares the result to the actual portfolio position size. Over 15 years of operation, Cameron has teams of data showing that his seemingly simple tool has added substantial returns for clients who employ it in their practice.

 

His data also revealed an important conclusion about many fundamental managers. Good active managers perform far better in their larger positions than they do in smaller names. Alpha Theory wrote “The Concentration Manifesto," preaching that managers and allocators would both be better served if managers focus on more concentrated portfolios of their best ideas.

 

Summary

 

Data analysis almost never gives an allocator the answer, but the tools employed are useful in measuring risk and return at the portfolio and manager level, and in making informed judgements about manager selection. The availability of data and the entrepreneurs at the forefront of assessing it enable CIOs to be more informed. Asking the right questions may reveal managers who eschew modern technology and are a step behind the pack.

 

December 29, 2020

Optimizing Usage for Optimal Returns (Part 2) - Position Level Analysis

 

This article was co-written by Billy Armfield, Data Scientist of Alpha Theory, and Cameron Hight, CEO of Alpha Theory.

 

In our last edition, “Optimizing Usage for Optimal Returns”, we explored the relationship between forecast freshness and portfolio coverage on one-day forward returns at the fund level. Freshness and performance showed a nearly monotonic relationship. Coverage, on the other hand, had a more parabolic shape with the lowest performance coming from the middle of the range. To explore these relationships further in this edition, we are investigating data at the ticker level instead of the fund level. We ask:

1. Does coverage show more predictive power at the ticker level than it did at the fund level?

2. Is freshness correlated with a performance at the ticker level?

 

Coverage

Ten years of data on Alpha theory clients have shown that process-oriented investing yields higher returns. A large part of the process centers around entering and updating scenarios forecasting future stock prices, and the probability of them reaching that price. Implicit in this philosophy is the idea that if you are going to make an investment, it should be supported by research. As part of our exploration of coverage and freshness at the ticker level, we regressed coverage against a one-day forward price change. In this case, coverage is treated as a binary variable based on whether a forecast has been made on the position or not.

 

B1

 

Unlike the results of measuring coverage by the fund, when measured at the ticker level, there is a distinct positive relationship with one-day forward price change. Simply stated, positions with price targets are more likely to outperform positions without price targets. 

 

Freshness

There is more than one way to bake a Christmas cookie, so we first examined which measure of freshness has a stronger relationship with one-day forward price change. We examined two variations. The first measures freshness in terms of the number of days since a forecast was last updated (DSLU). The second treats it as a binary feature, where its value is 1 if price targets were updated in the last ninety days, and zero otherwise. We regressed both features against a one-day forward price change for all positions in Alpha Theory’s historical database. The results for the DSLU method can be found in figure 1, and the results for the binary method in figure 2.

 

Figure 1 (Days Since Last Update)

B2

 

Figure 2 (Binary: Updated in last 90 days)

B3

 

The number of days since the last update has a negative coefficient and t-statistic, which makes sense, given that one might reasonably expect a lower degree of certainty of positive future returns when forecasts are out of date. While intuitive, its lower t-statistic and higher p-value means this relationship deserves further investigation before drawing any conclusions. The binary feature, however, has more conclusive results. Having coverage no older than ninety days does have a positive relationship with the one-day forward price change, with a higher t-statistic and lower p-value.

 

The importance of creating price targets and keeping coverage fresh can be summarized by the annualized price change of fresh positions vs. stale and uncovered positions.

 

B4

 

Scattered, Fresh, and Covered

Based on the analysis above, it is well worth the time to create price targets and keep them fresh as they are both important predictors of future returns. When thinking through how your firm is going to improve in 2021, use these empirical proofs as evidence that the team should seek process as a proven way to improve returns.

 

October 16, 2020

Best Ideas Update

 

The Cohen, Polk, Silli “Best Ideas” paper was first released in 2005 and Alpha Theory incorporated the 2010 draft in the Concentration Manifesto as an empirical proof (#3 to be exact) of why managers should concentrate. An updated version of the “Best Ideas” paper was released in June, it expands the data set from 24 to 37 years and reconfirms the earlier findings that active managers are 1) good at selecting and sizing a few “Best Ideas” and 2) then dilute the “Best Ideas” with a bunch of positions that are basically random noise.

 

The “Best Ideas” portfolio outperforms the rest of the portfolio and benchmarks by 2.8% to 4.5% per year with high statistical significance, across a thousand-plus mutual and hedge fund managers, and with consistency amongst managers and from year-to-year.

 

This abnormal performance appears permanent, showing no evidence of subsequent reversal, even several years later. Interestingly, cross-sectional tests indicate that active managers’ best ideas are most effective in illiquid, growth, momentum stocks, or for funds that have outperformed in the past.

 

Given the strong empirical evidence for concentration, why don’t managers concentrate more on their best ideas? The “Concentration Manifesto” highlights myriad reasons managers should concentrate but does not investigate why they do not. The “Best Ideas” paper does:

 

We identify four reasons managers may overdiversify.

 

1. Regulatory/legal. A number of regulations make it impossible or at least risky for many investment funds to be highly concentrated. Specific regulations bar overconcentration; additionally, vague standards such as the “Prudent man” rule make it more attractive for funds to be better diversified from a regulatory perspective. Managers may well feel that a concentrated portfolio that performs poorly is likely to lead to investor litigation against the manager. Anecdotally, discussions with institutional fund-pickers make their preference for individual funds with low idiosyncratic risk clear. Some attribute the effect to a lack of understanding of portfolio theory by the selectors. Others argue that the selector’s superior (whether inside or outside the organization) will tend to zero in on the worst-performing funds, regardless of portfolio performance. Whatever the cause, we have little doubt that most managers feel pressure to be diversified.

2. Price impact, liquidity, and asset-gathering. Berk and Green (2004) outline a model in which managers attempt to maximize profits by maximizing assets under management. In their model, as in ours, managers mix their positive-alpha ideas with a weighting in the market portfolio. The motivation in their model for the market weight is that investing in an individual stock will affect the stock’s price, each purchase pushing it toward fair value. Thus, there is a maximum number of dollars of alpha that the manager can extract from a given idea. In the Berk and Green model managers collect fees as a fixed percentage of assets under management, and investors react to performance so that in equilibrium each manager will raise assets until the fees are equal to the alpha that can be extracted from their 26 good ideas. This choice leaves the investors with zero after-fee alpha. Clearly in the world of Berk and Green, (and in the real world of mutual funds), managers with one great idea would be foolish to invest their entire fund in that idea, for this would make it impossible for them to capture a very high fraction of the idea’s alpha in their fees. In other words, while investors benefit from concentration as noted above, managers under the most commonly used fee structures are better off with a more diversified portfolio. The distribution of bargaining power between managers and investors may therefore be a key determinant of diversification levels in funds.

3. Manager risk aversion. While the investor is diversified beyond the manager’s portfolio, the manager himself is not. The portfolio’s performance is likely the central determinant of the manager’s wealth, and as such we should expect them to be risk-averse over fund performance. A heavy bet on one or a small number of positions can, in the presence of bad luck, cause the manager to lose their business or their job (and perhaps much of their savings as well, if they are heavily invested in their own fund, as is common practice). If manager talent were fully observable this would not be the case – for a skilled manager, the poor performance would be correctly attributed to luck, and no penalty would be exacted. But when ability is being estimated by investors based on performance, risk-averse managers will have an incentive to overdiversify.

4. Investor irrationality. There is ample reason to believe that many investors – even sophisticated institutional investors – do not fully appreciate portfolio theory and therefore tend to judge individual investments on their expected Sharpe ratio rather than on what those investments are expected to contribute to the Sharpe ratio of their portfolio. For example, Morningstar’s well-known star rating system is based on a risk-return trade-off that is highly correlated with Sharpe ratio. It is very difficult for a highly concentrated fund to get. This behavior is consistent with the general notion of “narrow framing” proposed by Kahneman and Lovallo (1993), Rabin and Thaler (2001), and Barberis, Huang, and Thaler (2006). A top rating even if average returns are very high, as the star methodology heavily penalizes idiosyncratic risk. Since a large majority of all flows to mutual funds are to four- and five-star funds, concentrated funds would appear to be at a significant disadvantage in fundraising. Other evidence of this bias includes the prominence of fund-level Sharpe ratios in the marketing materials of funds, as well as maximum drawdown and other idiosyncratic measures. Both theory and evidence suggest that investors would benefit from managers holding more concentrated portfolios.

Our view is that we fail to see managers focusing on their best ideas for a number of reasons. Most of these relate to benefits to the manager of holding a diversified portfolio. But if those were the only causes, we would be hearing an outcry from investors about overdiversification by managers, while in fact, such complaints are rare. Thus, we speculate that investor irrationality (or at least bounded rationality) in the form of manager-level analytics and heuristics that are not truly appropriate in a portfolio context, play a major role in causing overdiversification.

 

The reasons for diversification (not concentration) are real and will require systematic change and mutual agreement from both funds and LPs. Given the state of flows from active to passive, there may be a strong enough catalyst for that change.

 

February 8, 2020

Doing More with Less – Cliff Asness Illiquidity Discount Article

 

We’re all familiar with controls that point you towards the right decisions because knowing what to do and doing it are not the same thing. This is why our car dings until we put our seatbelt on, why there are signs reminding your server to wash their hands, and why we hire personal trainers. But what about blinders that help you avoid making bad decisions?

 

There are studies that show how a store that offers more options can cause customers to buy less because the extra information confuses the buyer's decision and causes them to make no-decision. More germane to our field, I know of funds where the PM restricts themselves and their analyst teams from checking P&L because they’ve attributed it to poor decision making. In this case, less information is more. Would you pay for less information?

 

In Cliff Asness’s latest piece, The Illiquidity Discount, he discusses that concept in the context of asset pricing. What is it worth to not know the price of an asset if knowing the price caused you to sell and buy at the exact wrong times? Where the artificially smoothed volatility of infrequent pricing was a feature.

 

The preference for illiquid, infrequently-priced assets that don’t smash you in the face with their volatility (even though it’s really there) could be rational in the same sense. Perhaps a levered small-cap portfolio is a rational investment for long-term investors, but there’s little chance they’d stick with it full-cycle. However, they find PE easy to stick with? It’s not hard for me to imagine these are both true for some (or many).

 

Finally, to address our main topic, what’s the next implication of extreme illiquidity and pricing opacity being a feature, not a bug? Well, you pay up in price (and give up in expected return) for features you value (not bugs you can’t stand). Attractive smoothness of returns may not come for free. If illiquidity is more positive than negative to many investors, it could easily mean paying a higher price and accepting a somewhat lower return to obtain it. Sounds really counter-intuitive, I know. But it also sounds, to me, pretty plausible.

 

I appreciate those that question conventional wisdom. I especially appreciate it when it is done in the pursuit of better decision making. There is something beautiful about simple hacks that help us make better decisions (i.e. that’s what we do at Alpha Theory). I think we’ll be spending more time at Alpha Theory in the coming months (years) thinking about if there is the information we present (or maybe the timing of that information) that may lead to sub-optimal decision making and what changes we can make to improve how/when information is delivered.  

 

November 1, 2019

Concentrating on Concentration: New Data on Portfolio Concentration

 

As most of our readers know, we are proponents of more concentrated portfolios. In May of 2017, we released our Concentration Manifesto which was an attempt to get a critical dialogue started between managers and allocators to ultimately improve the active management process. A conversation that requires both sides cast aside outdated thinking and embraces the notion that concentration is in their best interest.

 

And we’re seeing it in external data:

 

Exhibit 19

 

And in our own managers:

 

AveragePositionSize

 

This conversation began well before our Concentration Manifesto. We recently found an April 2014 study by Cambridge Associates outlining the “Hallmarks of Successful Active Equity Managers.

 

Cambridge Associates analyzed a selection of managers to isolate attributes that lead to success. In their findings, active share and concentration were major contributors. Their analysis1 found that concentrated portfolios (US equity less than 30 positions and US Small-Cap & EAFE Equity less than 40 positions) generated between 100bps and 170bps of additional performance over non-Concentrated portfolios.

 

Table-3.-Results-of-Active-Share-Analysis

 

The performance difference for concentrated managers held after fees and worked across various strategies. The fractal nature (it still works when you break it into different strategies) lends additional validation for concentration’s benefits.

 

In the Cambridge article, we found a reference to another concentration study.

 

Baks, Busse, and Green published “Fund Managers Who Take Big Bets: Skilled or Overconfident” in 2006. The abstract says it all:

 

We document a positive relation between mutual fund performance and managers' willingness to take big bets in a relatively small number of stocks. Focused managers outperform their more broadly diversified counterparts by approximately 30 basis points per month or roughly 4% annualized. The results hold for mimicking portfolios based on fund holdings as well as when returns are measured net of expenses. Concentrated managers outperform precisely because their big bets outperform the top holdings of more diversified funds. The evidence suggests that investors may enhance performance by diversifying across focused managers rather than by investing in highly diversified funds.

 

Their sample covers funds from 1979-2003 and the return advantage per month ranges between +1 and +67 basis points depending on the methodology for measuring fund concentration and how many deciles to included. That equates to a range between +0.12% and +8.34% on an annualized basis for concentrated managers.

 

Fund perf vs. portf weight

 

We continue to believe that there is a demonstrable skill in equity managers and that the skill could be harnessed in better ways than is typically demonstrated by the average manager and that concentration is the simplest way to improve a manager who possesses positive stock-picking skill.

 

1 eVestment Alliance Database: September 2007 to June 2013 US large-cap core equity, US large-cap growth equity, US large-cap value equity, US small-cap core equity, US small-cap growth equity, US small-cap value equity, and all EAFE equity

 

Download full version of the Concentration Manifesto

 

August 1, 2019

The Concentration Manifesto for Shorts

 

We were reading the great research that comes from our friends at Novus recently and saw a reference to a paper written by Della Corte, Kosowski, Rapanos (2019). This paper analyzes 1.7 million short positions from 585 managers that contributed to the European Union Short Disclosure Information dataset from 2012-2018. They found that highest quintile conviction shorts (P5 - as measured by position size) outperformed lowest quintile conviction shorts (P1). In fact, the highest conviction shorts were the only cohort that had a mean return that was negative on an absolute basis (positive contribution for shorts).

 

Panel A - Equally-weighted Portfolios

 

After applying a six-factor model, the alpha of a strategy going long the low conviction and short the high conviction had an alpha of 11%. Ideally, the results would show a gradual declination between P1 and P5, but P4 does not follow that trend. Nevertheless, there is a demonstrable skill in short selection for the largest position sizes and provides further support for the Concentration Manifesto.

 

Download full version of The Concentration Manifesto

 

May 3, 2018

Positive Skew…Part 2 – Maybe It’s Not So Bad for Active Managers After All

In my last post, I discussed the negative impact of positive skew for active managers. Basically, that more than 50% of all stocks in a given market underperform the average because there are stocks that go up more than 100% but no stocks that go down more than 100%. This means that if you pick a random portfolio of stocks from the market, you have a greater than 50% chance of underperforming the market because most portfolios will not hold those few stocks that went up more than 100%.

 

Because of the popularity of the last post and TV appearance, we spent time digging further into the data to answer questions posed by readers and viewers. We noticed that there was a tendency for the returns between the average stock return and the index return to be different.

 

And that is the problem with using the average stock return as the hurdle for funds. Investors are not measured against the average stock return, they’re measured against the benchmark, typically the S&P 500. Most indexes are market cap weighted, meaning that the index return and the average stock return are generally different.

 

In the example below, we’ve taken the current S&P 500 constituents and calculated their return since the beginning of 2012 and compared that to an average return (Equal Weighted) and the actual return of the S&P 500. The S&P 500 over that period was up 136% vs 175% for the average stock (this isn’t a perfect analysis because the constituents in the portfolio changed over that time but it is an approximation).

 

Positive Skew-part2

 

The graph above shows the distribution of individual stock returns over that period. You can see the outliers that pull the average stock return (red line) up to a point where 63% of individual securities underperform the average of 176%. But the S&P 500 was up 136% (green line) over that period so only 51% of stocks underperformed the benchmark. Pretty much a coin flip.

 

We brought positive skew up with Andrew Wellington at Lyrical Asset Management. They have done some great analysis comparing the top 1000 stocks by market cap in the US to the S&P 500 each year going back to 1998.

 

Chart2

Source: FactSet and Lyrical Asset Management

 

As you can see in the chart above, the average stock beating the S&P 500 index is a coin flip. For the past 20 years, the likelihood of any individual stock beating the S&P 500 in any given year is 50.2%. If I build random portfolios using the Top 1000 stocks in the US, there is a high likelihood that the portfolio return will be close to the S&P 500 return.

 

Some years are clearly better than others. ’98 and ’99 were horrible stock picking years. If you didn’t own the few stocks that had meteoric rises, you had a high likelihood of underperforming the S&P 500. ’01 and ’02 were good stock picking years. Over 60% of stocks beat the index.

 

What this means, is that any given fund’s batting average should be compared to the batting average of the universe of stocks compared to the benchmark. A 54% batting average in ’98 is heroic, in ’03, 54% is just inline. Take a look at 2017. It was the 3rd hardest stock picking environment in the last 20 years using this metric.

 

But what about other indices? Thankfully, our friend Julien Messias from Quantology Capital Management has done the analysis (1999-2014) comparing the S&P 500 and Russell 2000. Below are thoughts from Julien on the topic:

 

The Russell 2000 components returns exhibit a much more leptokurtic distribution (fat-tailed) than S&P 500, meaning that you have a huge part of the index’s components suffering from huge loss (or even bankruptcies), with an average of more than 60% of the components underperforming the index performance and 2% of the components with huge performance (more than 500% per year). The performance of the index is therefore pulled up by those latter 2%.

Assuming a stock-picker operates at random to choose its investment within the index universe, this means that his performance should be closer to the median performance of the components, than to the index performance itself. Therefore, given that the median performance is almost always lower than the index performance (see chart below), an investor in Russell 2000 securities is very likely to underperform and very unlikely to outperform.

The S&P 500 distribution is much more mean-centered, with very shallow/thin tails, meaning that the average stock picker is much more likely to generate a performance close to the index performance (graph from Lyrical AM) and less likely to underperform.

 

Chart3

Source: Quantology CM

 

The Russell 2000 index more apparently displays the impacts of positive skew because it is less impacted by the contribution of a few very large companies. AAPL, MSFT, GOOG, AMZN make up 12.2% of the S&P 500 while the Russell 2000’s top 4 positions make up 1.7% of the index. The result is that the average of all stocks in the Russell 2000 is much closer to the Russell 2000 index return than the average of all stocks in the S&P 500 (recall the large difference from the 2012 to 2018 analysis that showed the S&P 500 return was 136% vs 175% average of all stocks).

 

This means that the index chosen as the benchmark for your fund has a profound impact on your ability to beat it. More specifically, the probability of beating the S&P 500 with a random portfolio is 50%, for the Russell 2000, it’s 42%.

 

There has been quite a bit of press regarding positive skew. It’s a great conversation but, for the average fund that is measured against the S&P 500, the impact is overblown. Almost every investor is compared against a benchmark. I recommend that you dig a layer into your benchmark and measure its positive skew, the likelihood of beating the average stock return, the likelihood of beating the index return, and compare your hit rate against the hit rate each year to know how difficult or easy it was for you on any given year.

 

Quantology Capital Management Russell 2000 and S&P 500 Analysis:

 ­ Screen Shot 2018-05-03 at 10.03.58 AM Screen Shot 2018-05-03 at 10.05.52 AM

Does not include management fees

Data is cleaned from index turnover, with updates every year

March 12, 2018

Capital Allocators Podcast with Ted Seides: Moneyball for Managers

 

Learn how to enhance your investment results in this great podcast from Ted Seides and his guests, Clare Flynn Levy from Essentia Analytics and Cameron Hight from Alpha Theory.

This conversation covers the founding of these two respective businesses, the mistakes portfolio managers commonly make, the tools they employ to help managers improve, and the challenges they face in broader adoption of these modern tools. The good news is the clients of Essentia Analytics and Alpha Theory have demonstrated improvement in their results after employing these techniques. If you ask Clare and Cameron, you may develop a whole new appreciation about the potential for active management going forward.

 

LevyHight-FINAL

 

By creating a disciplined, real-time process based on a decision algorithm with roots in actuarial science, physics, and poker, Alpha Theory takes the guessing out of position sizing and allows managers to focus on what they do best – picking stocks.

In this podcast, you will learn how Alpha Theory allows Portfolio Managers convert their implicit assumptions into an explicit decision-making process. 

 

To learn how this method could be applicable to your decision-making process:

 

LISTEN NOW

 


 

 

August 18, 2017

Man Versus Model of Man: Lewis Goldberg

I recently read an article by Jason Zweig and saw a reference to Lewis Goldberg’s, “Man Versus Model of Man” paper on Expert Studies in the 1970 Psychological Bulletin. There are hundreds of published studies that have a similar theme. Give an expert any and all available data that they want and ask them to make a judgement germane to their field of expertise (examples include Oncologist – how long will a patient live, Parole Board – who is most likely to recidivate, Wine Expert – price of wine at auction, etc.)

The experts tell the scientist which variables are most important in their decision and the scientist goes off and builds a model and compares the model’s results to the forecasts of the “experts.” Over the past 60 years, hundreds of expert studies have been performed and show that the model beats or ties the expert 94% of the time (1).

There was one of Goldberg’s quote about the use of models versus clinical decision making made me laugh:

Such an enterprise, originally viewed with considerable disdain by clinical psychologists, has recently weathered a period of intense controversy (Gough, 1962; Meehl, 1954; Sawyer, 1966), and may soon become a reasonably well accepted procedure in psychology—if not in medicine, stock forecasting, and other professional endeavors.

Consequently, it now seems safe to assert rather dogmatically that when acceptable criterion information is available, the proper role of the human in the decision-making process is that of a scientist: (a) discovering or identifying new cues which will improve predictive accuracy, and (b) constructing new sorts of systematic procedures for combining predictors in increasingly more optimal ways.

This quote was written 46 years ago yet clinical judgement still dominates psychology, medicine, and stock forecasting. Given the evidence, it is hard to argue against model-based decision making or man + model, but expert judgement still dominates.

The experts that will dominate the future (and are already beginning to do so) are the ones that embrace models as an extension of their own expertise. Models do not replacement human judgement. The parameters models are built upon are determined by experts. Experts also are required to intuit when exceptions to the model are necessary.

My belief is that Lewis Goldberg’s prediction will come true in the next decade as computing power, statistical techniques, software, and zeitgeist have grown to a point where Man + Machine will become the rule instead of the exception.

Here’s a few other great quotes from Lewis Goldberg’s article:

- Mathematical representations of such clinical judges can often be constructed to capture critical aspects of their judgmental strategies.

- The results of these analyses indicate that for this diagnostic task models of the men are generally more valid than the men themselves. Moreover, the finding occurred even when the models were constructed on a small set of cases, and then man and model competed on a completely new set.

- Ten years of research on the clinical judgment process have demonstrated that for many types of common clinical decisions and for many sorts of clinical judges, a simple linear regression equation can be constructed which will predict the responses of a judge at approximately the level of his own reliability. For documentation of this assertion and for details of the methodology, see Hoffman (1960), Hammond, Hursch, and Todd (1964), Naylor and Wherry (1965), and Goldberg (1968). While such regression models have 424 LEWIS R. GOLDBERG been utilized (probably somewhat inappropriately) to explain the manner in which clinicians combine cues in making their diagnostic and prognostic decisions (see Green, 1968; Hoffman, 1968), there is little controversy about their power as predictors of the clinical judgments

 

(1) “Comparative Efficiency of Informal and Formal Prediction Procedures” – William Grove and Paul Meehl, published in Psychology, Public Policy, and Law (1996)

July 28, 2017

Crist on Value

There is a paper, famous in value investing circles, called Crist on Value. It is a chapter from a book written by horse handicapper Steven Crist who opines on the short-comings of the average horse bettor. Its popularity amongst value investors is due to its sage advice that can readily be applied to investing. The article is of moderate length and a must read for any fundamental investor. I’ve taken the liberty of highlighting a few of quotes pertinent to our profession:

- “How often have you or a fellow track-goer opined that you're a pretty good handicapper but you really need to work on your betting strategies or your so-called money management? The problem with this line of thinking is that it suggests betting is some small component of the game, which is like pretending that putting is a minor part of championship golf.” INVESTOR CORROLARY: Investors that believe they are good stock pickers but just don’t get the position size right.

- “Even a horse with a very high likelihood of winning can be either a very good or a very bad bet, and the difference between the two is determined by only one thing: the odds. A horseplayer cannot remind himself of this simple truth too often, and it can be reduced to the following equation: Value = Probability x Price." INVESTOR CORROLARY: Investments decision process requires three components: profit from win, cost from loss, and probabilities of each.

- “Now ask yourself honestly: Do you really think this way when you're handicapping (in probability-weighted returns)? Or do you find horses you "like" and hope for the best on price? Most honest players will admit they follow the latter path. This is the way we all have been conditioned to think: Find the winner, then bet. Know your horses and the money will take care of itself.” INVESTOR CORROLARY: Every investment requires story and value. With both, you don’t have an investment.

- “Sticking to your guns is easier said than done, but it is the only way to win in the long run. The horseplayer who wants to show a profit must adopt a cold-blooded and unsentimental approach to the game that is at variance with both the "sporting" impulse to be loyal to your favorite horses and the egotistical impulse to stick with your initial selection at any price. This approach requires the confidence and Zen-like temperament to endure watching victories at unacceptably low prices by such horses.” INVESTOR CORROLARY: If you’re human, you’re subject to bias and emotion. Define rules and procedures in advance that highlight discrepancies between your actions and your rules.

- “I cannot argue in good conscience that Two Item Limit had precisely a 60 percent chance of victory as opposed to 57 or 63 percent, and I doubt that such calibration is in fact achievable. It is, however, possible through experience to get close enough that if you demand sufficient value to cover the margin of error, you should outperform the competition-your fellow horseplayers.” INVESTOR CORROLARY: Coming up with probabilities for stock price outcomes are even more subjective, but that doesn’t mean you can skip the exercise. Play around with a range of outcomes and figure out what is “too conservative” and “too aggressive” to give you comfort for where the probability should be.

 - “If every horseplayer but you were a certifiable idiot, betting at random on names and colors, you would win every day. Conversely, if the only people betting into the pool were the small number of professionals who make a living this way, your chances for long-term victory would be slim.” INVESTOR CORROLARY: How does your competition in the stock market stack up today?

- “Your opportunity for profit at the racetrack consists entirely of mistakes that your competition makes in assessing each horse's probability of winning.” INVESTOR CORROLARY: While we look at the move to passive as a negative; more passive money should increase the number of opportunities for active investors.

- “There is no shame in passing a race because you just don't see any value in it. Nor should you force yourself to play a race in which you have no confidence in your own odds line.” INVESTOR CORROLARY: Good ideas are hard to find, but worth the wait.

- “Recognize the difference between picking horses and making wagers in which you have an edge. The only path to consistent profit is to exploit the discrepancy between the true likelihood of an outcome and the odds being offered.” INVESTOR CORROLARY: Probability-weighted return is the arbiter of all decisions.